Slashdot Mirror
Australia Plans to Censor the Internet
MAXOMENOS writes "The Australian government is planning to block websites used to organize violent protests, as part of a larger effort to prevent crime from being planned on the 'net." Yeah this is gonna work really really. It's working
out great in China after all.
When we chose to have freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech in our rights and freedoms, we chose to enshrine it, for better or for worse; to take the good with the bad. That's right, we chose to occasionally hear or read utterances of foul words such as nigger, or other words of hatred or obscenity because within the realms of free speech also lie enlightened and uplifting works, such as those of Plato, Charles Dickens, or Danielle Steel.
If the politicians see fit to take away rights from us, or from any other country for that matter, we still lose. Why's that? Because of the nature of the internet, we are all censored. The problem with censoring hate speech is the potential for continual erosion of speech rights. Next after hate speech, is critical speech. Take Russia for example, where a show named Kukli depicting political satire has been banned from television because of its critical nature. I repeat, this sort of thing is bad for all of us.
?-|||-----x<*))))><
I'm not sure I get it? It IS working pretty effectively in China, right? I sent some links recently about the Uighur Turks in Xinjiang (Sinkiang)province to some Chinese friends (living in America) who kept up with Chinese news sources via the web and they had never heard of anything in these articles (the existence of a Uighur Independence movement, bombings in Xinjiang, protests in the capital city of Xinjiang, etc).
It seems to me that China's censorship works pretty damn well!
Did anybody ever really think applications like Peek-A-Booty would have to be used in "Free" nations? Perhaps we're not paranoid enough.
Can somebody with a clue about Australian law an politics explain what recource the Australian citizens have against this measure?
How, are they going to block proxys too, what will stop a group from setting up a site in a diffent country and using a proxy in that (or another country) to view it.
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
I feel new sympathy for furriners who don't understand why there are two senators from Montana but only one representative.
E-Crime Law Reform Working Party,
What, like a political party?
State Opposition Justice spokesman Lawrence Springborg
So.... he's, like, the justice minister in the opposition's shadow cabinet?
A police ministers meeting in Darwin
WTF is a police minister? You have more than one? Is that like a District Attorney, like a chief of police, or something? It's a cabinet post?
Senator Ellison's decision to give the new Australian Crime Commission the power to investigate cyber crime.
I thought you had a parliament? Why is a Senator handing out new police powers, anyway?
I assume that the ACC is your shiny new sinister agency in charge of government repression.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Check out Harvard project for the latest on the battle. Looks like the Chinese are pulling ahead.
Leaving aside the debate on wheter or not censoring can be a Good Thing, I just want to say that the Australian government at least does it the right way. They block sites they don't want their citizens to see, rather than suing them for something that might be perfectly legal in the country the site is located. The latter method, in my eyes, would amount to extending their jurisdiction beyond the borders of their own territory. At least they're not doing that, so they're not affecting the rest of the world. The Australians can decide for themselves what to do with the censorship.
---
The right half of the brain controls the left half of the body. This
means that only left handed people are in their right mind.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Well, the media HAS been giving out too much information with publicly announcing those tapes. The first time we saw him, he didn't have a cloth behind him, so one of the media outlet analysts pointed out that they could probably figure out his location by the landscape. Well, of course, Bin Laden caught on and now he has a big sheet covering up the landscape (and his probable location).
There was way too much information that the media covered, as usual. I'm surprised the snipers were actually caught with the amount of detailed information that the media put out. ("Well, he's not shooting kids, so they're safe." Next day: "Oh, he just shot a kid!")
Zodiac Survey
Glad i live in the US where speech is still sort of free and we can almost speak our mind.
As long as i dont discuss decryption, copy protection, anarchy, discuss political issues before elections, how to get around taxes....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yeah this is gonna work really really. It's working out great in China after all.
6. Transfer (Guilt or Glory by Association)
Glory by association: The propagandist tries to transfer the positive feelings of something we love and respect to the group or idea he wants us to accept.
For example: "This bill for a new dam is in the best tradition of this country, the land of Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington." Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington were great leaders that most of us revere and respect, but they have no logical connection to the proposal under consideration - the bill to build a new dam.
Guilt by association: Works the same way, but in reverse.
For example: "John Doe says we need to make some changes in the way our government operates; well, that's exactly what the Ku Klux Klan has said, so there's a meeting of great minds!" There is no logical connection between John Doe and the Ku Klux Klan except that which the propagandist is trying to create in our minds.
Lick my dick, Captain America.
State Opposition Justice spokesman Lawrence Springborg said that despite the federal proposals, he would introduce a Private Member's Bill on defamation in Parliament today. It would call for defamation to be an indictable offence with up to five years' jail on conviction.
The case of defamation in the article might have certainly not been satire, but there is a wide blur line here.
How can somebody make an honest joke (about somebody) and not get penalized.
Case in point: Royal Canadian Air Farce (note: you can download episodes off of their website)
Their entire show is pretty much satire on people. Politicians mainly. Their imitation of Chretien has to be the best. This show might be cut and dry humour. But many satires are not quite as far on the humour spectrum.
Please tell me how you can distinguish them.
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
Yeah, I think it clearly is in the US Consitution. I never said that it was practiced, I just said it was in there. Please read the post (it wasn't that long) before you go on anonymously mocking it. Oh, and by the way, I'm a democrat.
"The Australian government is planning to block websites used to organize violent protests, as part of a larger effort to prevent crime from being planned on the 'net."
If they're inciting a riot, then charge them as such and let them defend themselves in a court of law. It looks like this law is designed to let the government decide by itself whether a website is planning a crime and lets them block it all by themselves without first charging the owners with a crime.
Read this, the best and most accurate report about the first "violent" protest in Australia, the unfortunately named "s11" protests on the 11th of September 2000.
.NET speech at the nearby conference centre. On the order of a hundred thousand protestors, all behaving themselves, standing in front of the gates to the site.
The police were indeed mad, there were thousands of protestors, all as calm and determined as could be, and successful. The first day they were forced to ferry in the conference candidates individually by helicopter. Bill Gates called off his
Violence - one or two people wanted to attack the police lines, they were well and truly calmed down by a dozen to half a dozen people each.
Anyway, read the article. It's all true afaik.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Of all the countries that has a hard on over Internet censorship and spying, why Australia?
I don't see a lot of crime their, where is the justification?
Ban Hotmail! I'm sure a lot of protests are organized via e-mail and mailinglists. Seriously, how can anyone think that this is going to suceed? Even China has resorted to physically, rather than technically, restricting internet access.
where's all that Karma?
I don't, nor did I suggest it anywhere. I believe that only 5% of republicans fit into the Pat Buchanon model.
With the exception of those on the fringe, the republican philosophy includes holding sacred the rights put forth in the consitution, and especially the freedom of speech.
I'm not buying. The recent election demonstrates that moderate republicans do not hold those "sacred rights" very highly. The republican voters have told them "Carry on as you are doing -just protect me, for I am scared". The message should have been "Yes we are scared but we are also brave. You must protect us - it is your obligation and we will accept no less. But don't you dare trample on our constitutional rights and don't you dare put your business agenda ahead of our security, our freedoms, or our rights."
Unfortunately it is people like you that flame half the popultion for your assumption of their values that cause some would be moderate republicans to become less moderate and to ignore the valid opinions of moderate democrats.
In fact, it is you, not I who flames - the very substance of your last statement is inflammatory. I do find it interesting that you first plead with me for understanding and then insult me. You have far too little information about my views upon which to make your (incorrect) assertions, but I'm not going be drawn into an argument. And I know too little about you (except that your spelling needs work), to make the kind of direct insult that you made. If you did know me, you would know that moderate is my middle name. But being moderate does not mean living in denial about the reality of the current situation.
A quick note to all the Americans crapping on about free speech and censorship and how f*ckin' great the 1st Amendment is.
Australia does not have a general right to free speech. But, there is a right to freedom of political communication. And more important in some cases than the substantive rights that are written on paper (important though they may be) is the way they are applied and protected. In the 50's, when the US Supreme Court buckled under political pressure and allowed blatantly illegal acts by the US Government against the Communist Party of the USA (which by the way is exactly the same way segregation was apartheid took hold in South Africa), the Australian High Court refused to allow the Menzies Government to ban the Communist Party in Australia. Our High Court has, by and large, assured that when the Government steps on our rights (even though they aren't specifically defined, which they should be) they're put back in their place
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will! - Antonio Gramsci.